I just got into work! TAKE A CHILL.
Also I'm on the fence about Reckamonic for referring to him/herself in the Royal "We".
WOAH! Holy smokes, are you for real right now? Firstly, who said I was trying to continue the RVS? Reading into my posts a bit much, aren't you?ConfidAnon wrote: I don't like this. Why continue the RVS when we are clearly past it? Even if you haven't read up yet, you obviously know that there is more serious discussion going on. This post smells of not having much to say, but fear of being labelled a lurker causes you to make an unsubstantial post. I don't like the need to keep up appearances . . . it's more of a scum trait, I'd say.
What? That was hardly an overreaction. I think maybe you're the one overreacting, no?ConfidAnon wrote:Nice overreaction.
Right, when I posted that, it was a joke intended to be RVS before I had read (and then realized) that serious allegations were being made. EXCUUUUSE ME.Your reason for voting AGar was "he's scummy in real life." I think (or at least, Ihope) you meant that as a joke vote. Joke votes are only really acceptable in the RVS. Therefore, a joke vote when we've moved past that is a continuation of the RVS.
2. Wait. First you deny that you were continuing the RVS, and then defend the RVS. It's almost as if you want to cover yourself regardless of which stance players take.
Wow, talking about overreactions... It sounds to me like you found a person who made an innocuous joke and chose to grab the one hand-hold you have on me, because it's easy. You're attacking me just to attack me because you've got nothing else to go on right now. Seems a little presumptuous and trigger-happy to me. Which brings me to:Joking around is fun, but it stifles productive discussion, and doing so while there are noteworthy events happening just clutters the thread. Your last sentence in this portion is interesting, considering you did go around voting willy-nilly without thinking things through while knowing there's a serious conversation going on.
What? How is that flailing? There is a difference between flailing and defending myself against your vote because I feel like it's silly.3. Where did you get the desire for a quick lynch from my post? There have been lots of votes cast in this game . . . does every voter want a quick lynch? I vote for who I find scummiest at the time, and your post was the scummiest thing I've seen. Your reaction is verification. But your hasty jump from one vote to someone wanting to quick lynch you is a poor argument, and makes you sound like you are flailing.
How so? I made the argument that Confid overreacted to my "overreaction" and I still believe that. In regards to everyoneThor665 wrote:Saying that this "is the point [you were] trying to make about Confid" strikes me as somewhat revisionist. You were making the point that he overreacted - now that people are saying you overreacted you appear to have a new storyline in place. Thoughts?
Holy god, are we still on about this? I admitted to being a newb as soon as the question of my experience was brought up. Nothing to hide there. Why is that still stuck in your craw?ConfidAnon wrote:The bolded bothers me. It is noted that you didn't start referring to yourself as a newb until others wrote off your odd behavior earlier as newbtells.
Okay. As soon as you claimed SK, CarrotCake piped up an immediately started defending you, going so far as to posit that we should not only avoid voting for you, butGuderian wrote:How? I dont understand any of this post. Offer allegiance???
No problem. If it is to everyone's liking, I will clearly mark any and all sarcasm from here on out. (For the record this is less sarcasm and more of a cynical retort.)singersigner wrote:1. This is irrelevant. The only relevance it has is when you start using it to defend your actions. Oh wait... No, we're not going to hold your hand. Just give us what you have, and THEN we'll tell you if it's dumb. Don't try to preemptively cover up dumb cases by saying "oh I'm not good, I'm just a newb" etc.
Oh this is absolute nonsense. I didn't think you were scum only because you claimed SK. Go back and read my posts; that was just one folly in a long list of scummy moves you've made this whole game.Guderian wrote:by the way, from my view, All of sims/singer/power had the same reaction to my claim, which I didn't expect. All are newer, so I expected the scum among them to act differently. But, Basically along the lines of, he claims SK, hes mafia, lynch him!
If you go back and look, the case against Gud as scum really starts to heat up just before he claims SK. I think it was less of a target-painting tactic and more of a diversionary one. He knew he had slipped up and came off as scummy, so as a last-ditch effort he claimed a role that would justify his weird actions without being scum.Thor665 wrote:Why was it a scummy action though? Which anti-town role wants to paint a giant target on its chest day one? The action was bad and relatively pointless regardless of his alignment and is thus a null action - why do you disagree?
You named more than half of the remaining players of the game there, son. How about being a little more specific? Perhaps elaborate a bit more on your CarrotCake vote (who, is on ANOTHER list of people you claim contain scum)Seraphim wrote:
Who is willing to bet that there's at least one scum on here, if not two?
Reckamonic
singersigner
Powerrox93
sims5487
AGar
ConfidAnon
Oh come on. I know I'm a newbie here and all but to sit there and blame us for lynching someone for irrational behavior is just ridiculous. Is that not one of the main things we're looking for to find scum?Carrotcake wrote:I also know Guderian from a past game, he was a cool calm fella. And such irrational movements from him wasn't indicative scum.